Was Mises right?
This paper argues that Mises's methodological position has been misunderstood by both friends and foes alike. On the one hand, Mises's critics wrongly characterize his position as rejecting empirical work. On the other hand, his defenders wrongly interpret his stance as rejecting empirical analyses on the grounds that they contradict apriorism and push economics towards historicism. We show that Mises's methodological position occupies a unique place that is at once both wholly aprioristic and radically empirical.
Volume (Year): 64 (2006)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/RRSE20|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RRSE20|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Vaughn,Karen I., 1994. "Austrian Economics in America," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521445528, November.
- Robert H. Bates & Avner Greif & Margaret Levi & Jean-Laurent Rosenthal, 1998. "Analytic Narratives," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 6355.
- Boettke, Peter J., 1995. "Why are There No Austrian Socialists? Ideology, Science and the Austrian School," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(01), pages 35-56, March.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rsocec:v:64:y:2006:i:2:p:247-265. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Michael McNulty)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.